Wild Greens - The Architect's Crutch?

[Mike Hendren]

Kalen's post on another thread has made me think.  (Thanks, Kalen!).  I'm a big fan of "wild" greens, however you chose to define such.  Is the concept being overused today, however and is there any tendency for an architect to design a few to mask otherwise pedestrian or relatively thoughtless architecture?  Stated another way are we being suckered?

Mike

[Sam Morrow]

Isn't the case sometimes that an architect uses wild greens because the property isn't good enough to build great tee to green holes? Sometimes I think that people forget that the architect can only do so much with the land he is given, unless of course he has an unlimited budget.

[Mike Hendren]

Shivas, properly prepared pig requires neither lipstick nor sauce.

Bogey

[Jim_Kennedy]

MH,
Greens are half the game, field shots the other. If the 'wild' greens are good 1/2 the battle is already won.

 

[Mike Hendren]

Isn't the case sometimes that an architect uses wild greens because the property isn't good enough to build great tee to green holes? Sometimes I think that people forget that the architect can only do so much with the land he is given, unless of course he has an unlimited budget.

Sam, I thought C & C did a fabulous job on such a site with Talking Stick North and its generally low profile greens.    Not even this dynamic duo, however could resist tossing in the severly undulating 16th green (which I like, by the way).

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

"Field shots." 

Dang I like that term.

Mike

[Ian Andrew]

Michael,

Bold contours dramatically reduce the need for supplementary elements to create strategy. Flat greens require a lot of additional elements to provide people with a reason for selecting a side of a hole.

I would generalize and say greens with contour are a common element of the best courses that I have ever seen.

It still remains a far better alternative than length and hazards when you want to challenge a player.

[Mike Hendren]

Well said, Ian.  I tend to favor courses where par is primarily defended around, if not actually on, the green.

Kindest regards,

Mike

[George Pazin]

Michael,

Bold contours dramatically reduce the need for supplementary elements to create strategy. Flat greens require a lot of additional elements to provide people with a reason for selecting a side of a hole.

I would generalize and say greens with contour are a common element of the best courses that I have ever seen.

It still remains a far better alternative than length and hazards when you want to challenge a player.

Dang I like that post.

[Peter Pallotta]

Well, to play devil's advocate:

Yes, bold contours can provide golfers with a reason for choosing one side of the fairway over the other, but the % of golfers for whom that "choice" is available and in any way meaningful is very small -- very small indeed.

For the rest of us, the vast majority of us, a boldy contoured green is simply that, i.e. it stands alone and independent of anything else at the end of the hole/journey, and serves only to ensure that we will have more 3 and 4 putts than we will 2 putts.

We chastise architects who build very long and narrow holes, but perhaps they are simply being more honest and direct and upfront in their attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. Meanwhile our boldly contouring brethren escape censure by hiding behind the fact that their golf holes are wide and not too long, and so are 'playable for all levels of golfers" -- playable, in fact, only until one reaches the green!

In fact, not only are the hard-ass architects who build narrow 7500 yard courses being more upfront and honest, they may actually be catering to and serving an average golfer like me even better than the softies, i.e. yes, they are demanding that I hit the fairway, but their counterparts are demanding that I hit "the right side of the fairway" (an even narrower target!!) -- or else suffer the consequence of 3 putting.

The fact that me and a 90 year old grandmother have the same chance to 4 putt a boldly contoured green doesn't seem to me to be the be-all and end-all of justifications some make it out to be.

Peter

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

Terrific thread indeed.  My royalties invoice will be in the mail shortly! 

As for greens, in interest of full disclosure, I must admit a course with a wild set of greens really gets me charged up more than anything esle on a golf course.  Its probably why I absolutely love a course like Pasatiempo. There is no other aspect in golf I like more than getting on a green and saying to myself "how in the hell am I going to two putt this thing".

Speaking of Pasa, my all time favorite green ever is #16.  I still remember walking over the rise on the convex fairway and beholding that green site unfold in front of me.  Previous pictures I had seen just did not do it any justice.  I felt like a kid in a candy store and couldn't wait to take a crack at it.  Of course I 3 putted it, but still get a ear to ear grin just thinking about that green and the chutzpah it would take for someone to actually build something like that.

And just for that reason alone, long live Dr. MacK!! 

[George Pazin]

Petey, I hope you're just being a devil's advocate, otherwise that was kinda depressing.

just because us lesser mortals can't always find the right side of the fairway, doesn't mean we can't try. And the recovery possibilities offered by someone who favors bold greens over other elements are generally greater, imho.

[Carl Rogers]

An interesting juxtaposition to contemplate ....

narrow and long vs strategic and contoured ....

I have always wondered how people who calculate stroke rating and slope rating reconcile these divergent golfing requirements??

[Phil McDade]

Bogey:

Not entirely sure this is entirely a modern-day construct.

Here's one of the duller holes I've come across in recent years, concluding with one of the best and wildest greens I've seen. I think you know this one.

#10 (par 4, 445/430)

From the tee...


Starting to hold a bit more interest...


Whoa...Doak, C&C, and other moderns have nothing on the guy who built this...

[Alex Miller]

Petey, I hope you're just being a devil's advocate, otherwise that was kinda depressing.

just because us lesser mortals can't always find the right side of the fairway, doesn't mean we can't try. And the recovery possibilities offered by someone who favors bold greens over other elements are generally greater, imho.

Hey Pete!

You don't have to be on the right side of the fairway to make your shot come in as though you were from that side. Wild greens reward shot-makers and shot-shapers. A player who can control the shape of a shot should be rewarded, and that is exactly what bold contouring does!

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Dear Mr. Devil,

I don’t know your granny’s putting game, but honestly how often do you really 4 putt on undulating greens? A pin position in the low point of an undulating green will attract balls more often than a flat or crowned green. Unless of course one of your bretheren set the pin in a satanical position.

[Brent Hutto]

I'd say it's a variation on Gary Player's famous comment about "...the finest course of its type I've ever played".

One kind fo interesting course (to me) is a course with wild and challenging greens. Greens like those at Pasatiempo or Tobacco Road would probably produce a pretty cool round if they were stuck in a minimally bunkered, decently conditioned cow pasture. But it is still possible to make a course with wild greens much, much better by adding interest to the rest of the design. Both the ones I mention qualify on both counts.

Another kind of interesting course is one with low-profile or flattish greens that has provided enough interest from tee to green that having simple putts is a welcome respite. One could definitely put a course "over the top" as we say by making it play like Carnoustie or Doral from tee to green and then putting greens like Oakland Hills or Oakmont at the end of each hole. I mention Oakmont as a course that may prove the rule, both tee-to-green and green contours seem pretty tough to deal with (or tough to shoot a score on). Is it "over the top"?

[Peter Pallotta]

Gents: I have to admit that I wasn't playing devil's advocate (that was just a dodge, to protect myself, perhaps much like architects who rely on boldly contoured greens to ensure they are being fair "to all level of golfers") -- as of 3:39 pm today, what I wrote is really how I feel. Maybe it's watching how the 6,900 yard Harbourtown course is challenging the best golfers in the world (and doing so in a fun way, according to the players) without the use of boldly contoured greens.  Maybe it is the reality that, while (as George says) we can "try to hit" the correct side of the fairway, I can also "try to hit" a ball out of the rough on a long narrow holel.  Why is it a fun challenge to try the former and drugery to try the latter? Alex - you're right, but that's just my point, i.e. yes, boldly contoured greens "rewards shot-makers and shot-shapers" -- but how many of those are out there amongst average golfers? Not many, I'd say. I'm just saying that perhaps the architects who build such greens should be more honest and admit that they too are 'testing' golfers, and just as much -- though in a different way -- as those who are building narrow 7,500 yard; and that they should admit as well  that their 'test' is as onerous as any other, especially when it comes to the only real way to 'keep score', and that is actually counting up the strokes.  John: yes, in general/theory you may be right, but on the only great course I ever played (Crystal Downs), I know that it was on the greens where I racked up the extra strokes (compared to the courses and less-contoured greens I usually play).  Again, all I'm saying is that boldly contoured greens add lots of strokes to the final number for the vast majority of golfers, just like length and narrow fairways do; and to pretend otherwise is being a bit disingenuous.

Peter

[Mike Hendren]

Phil, always nice to see a photo of the 10th at Blue Mound. 

Bogey

[JMEvensky]

Peter,I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't like a steady dose of Harbor Town.Agreed that the greens are flattish and not difficult to putt.But, your "like" for the puttable greens would be trumped by your "dislike" of how difficult it is to get to them.

It's a very frustrating course for all but very accurate players.

[Brent Hutto]

I'd love to play Harbor Town one day but watching it on TV reminds me of the Par 3 course I used to go to once a month or so when I was first learning to play golf. On the one hand there were just two shots out of nine holes requiring longer than a 7-iron for even a very short-hitting beginner (the exception being twin uphill and downhill 180-yard Par 3's). But it was squeezed into very small clearings through a modest parcel of heavily-treed property. And with four holes that played around a pond, to boot.

It took me several years to gain the perspective that it was just me who started feeling like I was wearing a collar two inches too tight by the middle of the second time around that course in a day. There was practically no place on the course where a ball would be playable (or even necessarily findable) if hit 20 yards offline. And almost any shot 30 yards off target was a lost ball, period. Even with a short iron in your hand having swing after swing after swing that absolutely must be at least close to ones desired line turns into something other than a game.

I think Harbor Town would be like that except with 5-irons and hybrids and even Drivers in your hand. Hard way to earn a living if you ask me...

[George Pazin]

...I mention Oakmont as a course that may prove the rule, both tee-to-green and green contours seem pretty tough to deal with (or tough to shoot a score on). Is it "over the top"?

Nope. It's perfect.

[Brent Hutto]

George,

I had a different course in there but replaced it with "Oakmont" just to flush you out of the weeds.

[Kalen Braley]

I'd much rather play a course where I felt I had a chance when standing on a tee, and then getting "wrecked" on the green...

....over a course where I'm already owned before I even tee it off! 

[Greg Tallman]

Why the continuous attempt to define what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

The defense at the green approach is en vogue now and pushed by those who point to the grand ole courses to validate their design. Out of curiosity how wide is Royal County Down? How wild are the greens? How penal is the scrub of the fairway?

Is it forbidden to like the approach and style of architects whose styles are on opposite ends of the specrtum?  

Can I not like Tom Doak's work while also liking that of Tom Fazio?
Am I an idiot because I think playing Harbour Town one day and Pac Dunes the next sounds wonderful?

I am a purist and therefore I am correct!!!!
Yeah??? Well 99% of the golfing world agrees with me therefore I am correct!!!!